'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
AJM8125 said:
So fire's left to burn all day and spread across multiple floors is a "normal office fire". I have my truther definition now. Thanks.
Click to expand...

NIST defines them as ordinary office fires.

They were in an office building and fuelled by office contents. Office building fires have burned a lot longer than wtc7 in the past and over more floors.

They were ordinary office fires. Unless, you disagree with NIST.
 
Seeing as these are being described here by some as "Normal office fires" surely those making that claim can show many other images and videos where the fire and smoke as seen from the exterior are similar in extent and quantity.


But I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for it...
 
cooperman said:
NIST defines them as ordinary office fires.

They were in an office building and fuelled by office contents. Office building fires have burned a lot longer than wtc7 in the past and over more floors.

They were ordinary office fires. Unless, you disagree with NIST.
Click to expand...

I must've missed the part where NIST called them ordinary office fires, because if they did, I'd have to disagree with them.
 
cooperman said:
NIST say the damage played no role in the collapse. The OP of this thread claims the damage did play a role.

Do you agree with NIST?
Click to expand...

NIST said that the structural damage wasn't the primary cause of the collapse. In other words if there were no fires subsequent to the collapse of the North Tower that struck WTC 7 then the building would've most likely remained standing. They never said that there was no damage to WTC 7, nor that that damage didn't lead to the fires which caused the eventual collapse of WTC 7. You can't try to make the report say what it doesn't say by cherry picking bits and pieces while ignoring the body of the report.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
Seeing as these are being described here by some as "Normal office fires" surely those making that claim can show many other images and videos where the fire and smoke as seen from the exterior are similar in extent and quantity.


But I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for it...
Click to expand...

This fire looks pretty bad

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/fib_la_fire1_s.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/fib_la_fire_lg_s.jpg

It was the First Interstate Bank fire.


And this one looks "fully involved"

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/mandarin/beijing_torch.jpg
Breaches of rule 5 removed. Do not hotlink images from other sites without permission.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles


The last one was teh Hotel Mandarin Oriental. A different kind of construction to wtc7 but a very serious fire, wouldn't you agree?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi, There was damage to the outside of 7. On the corner. The build did not go straight down it fell to the south (In the direction it was leaning from the damage) All this is clear in video shot at the time. The NYFD knew the build was going down because they could hear it breaking. There was a bulge in the building. There was 42,000 gal of diesel fuel inside. None of this is new
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
No... Titanic Explorer is correct. the North Tower did fall on and severely damage WTC7. The rest of his post is accurate as well.
Click to expand...

Did the severe damage play any role in the collapse of wtc7? If it didn't then while the statement may be factual, it is lying when used in this context.
 
cooperman said:
It was, but the same role could have been played by a screwed up copy of the new york times and a match.

The OP is very deceptive in claiming that damage caused by the towers collapse contributed to 7's collapse. It didn't. wtc7 was, according to NIST, destroyed by ordinary office fires. I know it is hard to adjust after years of claiming the collapse was caused by diesel fuel and a 10 storey gash, but that is the official story.

If you want to combat toofers saying "what about building 7?" then to mention damage from the wtc collapse is lying.
Click to expand...
Not really. Broken windows help feed air to the fires. The damage also helped spread the fire to multiple floors. So yes the damage did in fact aid in the collapse.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Yes, it's factual. No it is not lying.

You have had this explained to you numerous times before.
Click to expand...


Did the severe damage caused by the collapse of wtc1 contribute to the collapse of wtc7? You can cut the question out out of your qoutes but it isn't going away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom